Thoughts on the future of the economy.

Torakx

Just an idea i wanted to pose to people here.

I was thinking about society and economy on a global and national scale and how it will progress in the future.
Its pretty apparent that technology is increasingly as time goes on, making tasks easier to do.

So we seem to have alot less need for workers as technology replaces them.And with the global population going up incrementally faster(i think),it seems to me this problem will get worse.

Im considering about 100 years ahead by the way.

So is it a viable idea in any way, to lower the working hours globally of all employee's, say from 40 hours to 10-20 hours per week?
So companies can have shifts and run longer hours too.

One obvious issue, is efficiency in that system will go down for production, since you are paying twice the wages for all employess to still earn the same wage.

But the upside is globally there will be twice as any jobs available.And my "vision" if you will, in 100 years, is that maybe people will only have to work 2 hours a day and spend the rest of the time in some peacefull bliss

So how would you support such a theory with regards to the global economy?

Im aware that the effects of such an idea cover so many topics, but im curious about how you could if possible wedge this mechanic or one to support it into the current financial system, or if not, can the current system be incrementally changed over time to reach that goal?

So thats what i was thinking about and got the urge to post here.
Its a bit mad maybe, but i hope to hear some creative economics

CillianL

http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_mcafee_are_droids_taking_our_jobs.html

I seen this today and links in with an 'economics of the future' discussion.
Personally I can't hold McAfee's optimistic view of continued technological progress on society, I think it is and will continue to polarize the labor force, create further structural unemployment and will further increase corporate power over the limited employment resources left.

The idea that there's a technological Eden over the horizon is wrong, work is a part of being human and simply automating it out of existence will have devastating costs down the line

jay-me

The thing is without people working there is nobody spending.. And if nobody is spending there is no econemy.. And then the corporations are worthless.

Torakx

Thanks for that video link.
He pretty much said what i was thinking,but way better

I share his enthusiasm,but im not as optomistic about the direction we are heading.I can see that governments wont take steps now to address upcoming problems,because politicians just think about their own generation and screw over the next,its like watching children running the world.

When scientists and proffessors are conferencing and making the decisions, then i might have some hope.

If wages were increased for doubling the workforce,inflation would double at the least right?
Is there anything wrong with having more money printed globally?
I think debt is the amount of currency in the economy and maybe only an issue because the lenders are asking for the interest.
If we created our own money we would not have this issue?


Im aware this has serious effects internationally if you dont do that globally and only here and there in different nations.
So in this regard im thinking a government lead world currency is actually an interesting idea.But from what ive seen of the IMF im very dubious about those who would end up weasling their way in.


Or is it a case that the debt that is owed to people at the source of the credit line is in their control since they are the lenders.

If we did have a world currency which was used to take out these private lenders, would we be able to then create a system i mentioned earlier?

I suppose myself, i think it could be done, but its in no way realistic to think it could happen.
I am curious how it could be done.
I may need the info also for some other ideas

Also this reminds me of that new version of the older film Total Recall.
They had workers building robot soldiers and then turned them on the people because of over population lol

CillianL

Torakx wrote: »

Thanks for that video link.
He pretty much said what i was thinking,but way better

I share his enthusiasm,but im not as optomistic about the direction we are heading.I can see that governments wont take steps now to address upcoming problems,because politicians just think about their own generation and screw over the next,its like watching children running the world.

When scientists and proffessors are conferencing and making the decisions, then i might have some hope.

If wages were increased for doubling the workforce,inflation would double at the least right?
Is there anything wrong with having more money printed globally?
I think debt is the amount of currency in the economy and maybe only an issue because the lenders are asking for the interest.
If we created our own money we would not have this issue?


Im aware this has serious effects internationally if you dont do that globally and only here and there in different nations.
So in this regard im thinking a government lead world currency is actually an interesting idea.But from what ive seen of the IMF im very dubious about those who would end up weasling their way in.


Or is it a case that the debt that is owed to people at the source of the credit line is in their control since they are the lenders.

If we did have a world currency which was used to take out these private lenders, would we be able to then create a system i mentioned earlier?

I suppose myself, i think it could be done, but its in no way realistic to think it could happen.
I am curious how it could be done.
I may need the info also for some other ideas

Also this reminds me of that new version of the older film Total Recall.
They had workers building robot soldiers and then turned them on the people because of over population lol

There are numerous problems. Corporations have bought politicians through donations and the threat of outsourcing/ job cuts so its industry decisions as well as political decisions that will decide where the world will go in the next 20 years.

In terms of monetary policy, no simply printing money isn't sustainable. For a fiat currency (a currency that isn't backed by government resources such as gold etc), you need an economic base from which to judge its market value (I stand open to correction on this). So if you have more money chasing the same amount of goods and services you get inflation as you need more of the money for the trade to be worthwhile. Think of it in terms of gold versus mild steel. There's a lot more iron ore in the world than gold thats why gold is more valuable because its rare. A fiat currency has to have its rarity backed by a government thats why its production is monopolized and why if you have more of it its less valuable thus you get inflation.

The dollar is the world reserve currency so printing trillions of dollars to pay off debt would hyperinflate the currency . This is partly why Ireland is f*cked because if could pay off off our debts in the punt, we could print enough to pay off the debt, hyperinflate and then change the currency.

Finally in terms of technologically driven unemployment, its a case that the galley ships weren't designed by the slaves who rowed them. Its easy for academics to spout the virtues of increased automation of jobs to boost capital profits as they themselves won't be the losers in that game. Big corporations don't see themselves as having a responsibility to society anymore, instead its to the shareholders in the markets. So automation will further create structural employment (as when you automate services theres no other economic sector activity workers can go to) but if thats what gives shareholders the next dividend thats whats they'll do. The costs will be passed onto society and governments. But as was said in another comment they're going to kill their very consumer base by doing this

Farrgar

Its already on the way back, I've been noticing a lot more cranes going up over the last few months which usually means there's money about

CillianL

Farrgar wrote: »

Its already on the way back, I've been noticing a lot more cranes going up over the last few months which usually means there's money about

In the 'boom years' the fact that we had cranes all over Dublin didn't mean our economy was any stronger, it was a ponzi scheme fueled by cheap foreign credit.

Torakx

I think the wedge would have to be fairly large at this stage of the game.

It seems to me the crux of the issue for said theory, is the fact that govs are being charged interest to have a currency to use.
The amount of interest owed globally is so much that I doubt it can ever be paid back realistically.Without some drastic consequences anyway.

An IMF sounds good in one way, that they are setting global standards.
But banks and govs shouldnt have to borrow at interest.There is no resources backing these loans, so imo the return should not be interest out of money borrowed.
Out of the money created/borrowed the imf members should be paid wages for managment.

That would leave no interest on money created for national banks to use i think.

That still requires responsible members of parliament/gov though.

Being held responsible is something irish politicians need to be made more aware of.
We still have a sherrif i think too would like to see him put to use and clean house.

Dr SpudZ

We need to cut social welfare. Drive the lazy dolers off their lazy holes and back to work

thebman

The thing about machines is they need to be fixed and maintained. If you just have the people required to do that working then you end up in a bit of a bind.

Why would these people continue working long hours to pay for the welfare of those that don't have the skills to do so? There is little or no incentive to do so.

simply simple

Torakx wrote: »

Just an idea i wanted to pose to people here.

So we seem to have alot less need for workers as technology replaces them.And with the global population going up incrementally faster(i think),it seems to me this problem will get worse.

So is it a viable idea in any way, to lower the working hours globally of all employee's, say from 40 hours to 10-20 hours per week?
So companies can have shifts and run longer hours too.

One obvious issue, is efficiency in that system will go down for production, since you are paying twice the wages for all employess to still earn the same wage.

But the upside is globally there will be twice as any jobs available.And my "vision" if you will, in 100 years, is that maybe people will only have to work 2 hours a day and spend the rest of the time in some peacefull bliss

So how would you support such a theory with regards to the global economy?

So thats what i was thinking about and got the urge to post here.
Its a bit mad maybe, but i hope to hear some creative economics

What can be seen here is that this theory of yours support only the idea of getting work done and paid for that (machines and robots are good at this), but there is no consideration for innovation, human psychology and work life balances( reverse way, less work and more leisure will also not feel good).getting everyone employed is not economics and neither is having a lot of free time + money. With increasing educated and literate world population we can just skip the step of labour work in few decades and leave that stuff for machines and robots and then more concentration will be to new lifestyles out of it and encashing those situations raised after or during that stage.and innovations and neccesities there after.New paths and destinations for business will shape the economy then

hope explanation sounds clear to you as its in my head :P

NIMAN

I often considered this whole situation too, especially when I hear about nations/economies talking about growth.

We live on a planet with finite resources, can we really afford to grow our economies year in year, indefinitely?

I think food, water and energy resources will be the major concerns in the next 100 years, and probably the stuff that might just start wars in the long off future. (Wait a minute, have we already started a war for oil?).

Torakx

simply simple wrote: »

What can be seen here is that this theory of yours support only the idea of getting work done and paid for that (machines and robots are good at this), but there is no consideration for innovation, human psychology and work life balances( reverse way, less work and more leisure will also not feel good).getting everyone employed is not economics and neither is having a lot of free time + money. With increasing educated and literate world population we can just skip the step of labour work in few decades and leave that stuff for machines and robots and then more concentration will be to new lifestyles out of it and encashing those situations raised after or during that stage.and innovations and neccesities there after.New paths and destinations for business will shape the economy then

hope explanation sounds clear to you as its in my head :P

Good points.
I think that it would be nice to be able to skip the manual labour,but it doesnt seem realistic.
What would you do with all the skilled labourers or people who cannot fit into that workforce.
And while it would be great to see a switch where innovation was sought after more than production,which is where we are heading i think, not everyone can be an innovator or is it innovative.


Also because governments are not working for the good of the voters etc it seems impossible to imagine a gov cutting national production costs and using the resources saved to better the country.
I can imagine more unskilled people as the population rises and jobs become less available.
In some respects a system modeled closer to communism and less to demo-cracy seems preferable to me.

Hence my thoughts on doubling the workforce and making life more flexible for everyone.As a cushion/bandaid i suppose for this system.
If it were at all possible i can imagine it being only a temporary cushion.

Theres still the issue with the 1-2% of the world owning 90% of it, or whatever the numbers are.And still wanting their interest back for a system of fiat currency that we make use of.
That issue i see no way around, although i recently heard something about Iceland a while back sacking their government.

I had thought if you did that and the gov owed big money to the IMF or other private lenders you would have a serious confrontation with them on some level.
Im sure countries in the middle east have been raided for less.

To NIMAN
I think too that food and water is going to be a serious issue,maybe even in 50 years.
Hard for me to make a guess on that one.Most people are eating poisons in small doses right now imo.Not hard to up that bit by bit untill there is no natural food left on the shelves.

Look at what monsanto are doing and who is going to stop a corperation that big from destroying our natural enviornment.
Last i heard the Irish gov were allowing gm potatoes to be grown in carlow i think it was.
I remember a petition going around but not sure if it stopped gm foods being grown for us here.

But im getting sidetracked there
I think at the end of the day we are not civilised yet.Despite what anyone imagines, we are much like other animals(i mainly mean in regards to bussiness which encompasses war also).
When we become more civilised as a species then maybe this stuff has some sort of chance to happen.

So maybe never haha